Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

productplan-mcp-server

by olgasafonova

list_users

Read-only

List all account users with their ID, name, email, and role. Use these IDs to assign launch tasks.

Instructions

List all users in account.

USE WHEN: "Who has access?", "Team members" Returns array of users with ID, name, email, and role. Use user IDs from this tool when assigning launch tasks via manage_launch_task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim
summaryYesHuman-readable summary of the result (e.g. "Found 3 roadmaps")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv6.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "description": "The ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim",
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "summary": {
      +      "description": "Human-readable summary of the result (e.g. \"Found 3 roadmaps\")",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "summary",
      +    "data"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observedv5.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns an array with ID, name, email, and role, which is useful but partially redundant with the output schema. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements, but for a simple read-only list with annotations, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical usage trigger and return-format note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It states the scope, return fields, and a direct integration use case with manage_launch_task, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all users in account.' It clearly identifies the scope (account-wide) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_teams and list_all_customers by focusing on users.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'USE WHEN' section provides concrete trigger phrases ('Who has access?', 'Team members') and explicitly connects this tool to manage_launch_task by telling agents to use its user IDs for assignment. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.